The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

March 22nd, 2018

Reply about a speech by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din made at Lahore in 1912

The following has been submitted by Hussun Ahmad.

In the same speech of 1912 he [Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din] also says:

The descendants and close relatives of Hadrat Mirza Sahib are all devoted to me. I tell you truly that there is not one of you who obeys me as do my dear ones Mahmud, Bashir and Sharif, and as do Mir Nasir Nawab and Nawab Muhammad ‘Ali Khan. I do not affirm this to please them, but state it as a fact that they love me out of the desire to win the pleasure of God. I have heard the Ummul Mu’minin affirm a score of times that she deems herself my servant. Miyan Mahmud is grown up, he will tell you that he obeys me sincerely. A critic might say that he does not obey me sincerely, but I know for certain that he is truly, obedient to me, more than any one of you. All the members of Hadrat Mirza Sahib’s family obey me as ‘Alira, Fatima and ‘Abbas obeyed Abu Bakr even more so. Every one of them is so devoted to me that I cannot conceive any of them entertaining a wrong notion about me.

This speech also is interesting about the question of non Ahmadis. I was wondering if i could have the Lahore Jamaat interpretation of this?

Another question on which you differ and raise contentions is: What is the status of our opponents? Now listen carefully. The Word of God has expounded the principles with regard to the acceptance and rejection of a Prophet.

Whenever a Prophet has appeared there has been no difficulty with regard to the classification of those who believe in him and those who disbelieve. Casuistry apart, God Almighty has set forth clearly the principles of disbelief, faith and association of partners with Allah. There have been Prophets in the past. In each case there were those who believed and those who disbelieved. Have you had any doubt concerning them; and have you had any problem about the classification of those who did not believe in them? You have been told of the principles of belief and disbelief.

Hadrat Mirza Sahib (as) was a Messenger of God. Had he not applied the term Prophet to himself, he would have been guilty of rejecting the Hadith narrated in the compilation of Muslim in which the one who was to come was named a Prophet. The question of believing in him or rejecting him is clear. If one who rejects him professes to be a Muslim he is that much closer to you, as the Christians are closer to you than the Jews. In the same way the Muslims who reject Hadrat Mirza Sahib can be closer to us than the others.

6 Responses to “Reply about a speech by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din made at Lahore in 1912”

  1. March 22nd, 2018 at 3:59 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Please read at this link my article which deals in detail with this speech, showing why Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din went to Lahore and what opinion he expressed about the Lahore members during his visit (these members being the same persons who formed the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat at the split in 1914). It will also help you to understand the first extract that you quote from his speech, as to why he mentioned that these family members of the Promised Messiah obey him. It was because of certain people saying: "those who were entitled to the right of khilafat did not get it, but it went to someone else" (as he mentions in his speech).  Who was saying this? It was the supporters of these family members who were saying that the khilafat should have rightfully gone to a family member but it went to Nur-ud-Din.

    In my article, please also scroll down to the heading: 'Editor of Badr made to apologise' and read under there. As the Hazrat Maulana says in the speech, the editor printed a comment from a book which said that "not even one of the relatives of Ghulam Ahmad is his (Nur-ud-Din's) follower". Hazrat Maulana said in this speech: "That journalist who writes that no relation [of Hazrat Mirza sahib] is a follower of mine should repent. He should ask the relatives of Mirza sahib." As stated in a footnote at that point in Badr, that journalist was Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, editor of Badr, who then published a 1-page apology from himself to Maulana Nur-ud-Din in Badr. He later became a top-most missionary of the Qadiani Jamaat.

    As to what the Hazrat Maulana said about non-Ahmadis, let us turn to the very next issue of Badr (18 July 1912), in which we read the following:

    “A letter from a man was presented before Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih asking about the instruction in the conditions of the bai‘at (Pledge) to show sympathy to Muslims: Does it mean Ahmadi Muslims or non-Ahmadis as well? He replied: This means all Muslims, whether they are Ahmadis or non-Ahmadis.”

    The following year, in Badr of 6 March 1913, it was reported that a notable Maulvi sent Maulana Nur-ud-Din the question: "Do you consider non-Ahmadi Muslims as being kafir, and do you regard me as kafir?" The Maulana's written reply was: "We do not consider any Muslim, one who professes the Kalima, as kafir." But the Maulvi replied saying that he could not clearly read his writing. So Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote him another reply in which he wrote:

    "Maulana, assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu. Here is the respectful reply. If a man considers himself to be a Muslim, then please tell me what right I have to say to him: You are not a Muslim? … My reply is perfectly clear."

    These and other statements of the Hazrat Maulana make it plain that he regarded non-Ahmadis as Muslims. To understand what he is saying here, remember that prophets and the auliya commissioned by Allah have certain things in common. They all come to create true faith in God. Those who reject them, whether rejectors of a prophet or of one of the Divinely-commissioned auliya, also have certain things in common. They are deprived of true faith. But a Muslim deprived of the truest and fullest faith is still a Muslim, even though he has shortcomings in common with Christians and Jews (but as he says here, the shortcoming in faith of a Muslim is less than the shortcoming and error of a non-Muslim).

    The last quoted para in Hussum Ahmad's post begins:

    "Hadrat Mirza Sahib (as) was a Messenger of God. Had he not applied the term Prophet to himself, he would have been guilty of rejecting the Hadith narrated in the compilation of Muslim  in which the one who was to come was named a Prophet. The question of believing in him …"

    Hazrat Maulana did not add "(as)" (alaihi salaam) in his speech. That is the translator's addition. Often in his writings he calls him just "Mirza", without even "Hazrat". Also, the word translated as 'messenger' is mursal, which is also applied to non-prophets who are sent by Allah.

    But much more importantly, a sentence here has been omitted. After the words "was named a Prophet", Hazrat Maulana says:

    "Pas wo nabi ka lafz bolnai per majboor hain", meaning: "Hence he is forced to use the word nabi." (Badr, 11 July 1912, page 4, column 1, top)

    These words clearly show that Hazrat Mirza sahib was not a prophet. If he had been a prophet there would be no question of talking about "applying the term Prophet to himself" and being "forced to use the word prophet". The point he is explaining is: How can the word 'prophet' be applied to one who is not a prophet?

    Hazrat Maulana's mention of the hadith in Sahih Muslim clarifies the whole matter. The Promised Messiah had written about this hadith as follows:

    "The name ‘prophet of God’ for the Promised Messiah, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Khatam al-anbiya?” (Anjam Atham, p. 27, footnote)

    "In Sahih Muslim there is a hadith about this, namely, that the Messiah shall come as a nabi of God. Now if, in a symbolic sense, by 'Messiah' or 'son of Mary' is meant a member of the Muslim community who holds the rank of muhaddas, then no difficulty arises."
    (Izala Auham, p. 586)

    It is clear that in these statements the Promised Messiah is explaining how one who is not a prophet has been called prophet in that hadith.

  2. How many other refromers/mujahids wives have been addressed as "Ummul Mu’minin"?

    Perhaps the lahoris will claim that MGA's wives were zilli/buroozi "Ummul Mu’minin". I think Iqbal was right, Lahoris are just preaching a watered down version of Qadiani teachings.

  3. March 24th, 2018 at 12:24 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Nice to hear from you after a long time, Mr Ali.

    I do recall from memory that this expression has been used in Sufi circles. They refer to a hadith: "The Shaikh (spiritual leader) among his followers is like a prophet among his Ummah" (see 'The Perfect Spiritual Guide', translation of a book by Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman Sarwari Qadri, p. 73). By "believers" are meant the believers in the spiritual leader.

    Iqbal must have been a slow learner because he was on the stage in December 1927 at the 14th annual Jalsa of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore.

    From The Light, 5 January 1928:

    "On 28th December at 3-30 p.m. the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam, Lahore, began its Fourteenth Anniversary celebration which continued up to December 30. The first meeting was held in the Islamia College ground, Lahore, which was attended by a large number of people.

    In opening the celebration Maulana Muhammad Ali, President of the Anjuman, proposed Lord Headley to preside over it. His proposal was supported by Sir Muhammad Shafi and seconded by Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan and Sir Muhammad Iqbal."

    Iqbal made a speech, seconding the proposal mentioned above, just after Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din had made a brief address. Iqbal's speech began as follows:

    “Sometime ago I wrote the following verse about Europe: ‘Europe has polluted the fountains of knowledge.’ They say that poetry is a part of prophethood. It may be that Allah, by means of the efforts of our friend Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and his co-thinkers, will cause Europe to make these fountains pure and clean again through Islam."

    Iqbal was quoting the Persian saying: sha`iri juzv ast paighambari. Of course "poetry is a part of prophethood" because Iqbal was a poet!

    He ended his speech as follows:

    "With these words, I support the proposal presented by my friend Maulvi Muhammad Ali."

    (I am not aware if Maulana Muhammad Ali at this point said to himself: With friends like these, who needs enemies!)

    So why did Iqbal come to the annual gathering of Lahori Ahmadis, the 14th annual gathering? Didn't he know after 14 years of the existence of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamaat that it was preaching "a watered down version of Qadiani teachings"? And instead of saying in his public speech that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din is making efforts to propagate Islam in Europe, he should have been warning Muslims that Khwaja is preaching nothing but "a watered down version of Qadiani teachings".

  4. April 4th, 2018 at 7:08 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Hussun Ahmed: You have submitted to this blog three very lengthy comments in refutation of my article about the speech of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din in Lahore in June 1912. I suggest that you combine them into one article, organising your material more systematically, and publish it in an organ of your Jamaat. I will give a link to it here and respond fully. I am sure you want your Jamaat members to know what a powerful reply you have written, and also to see my (weak) response. Will it not be faith-enhancing for them?

    In the lengthy extracts you have given from the 1912 Lahore speech of the Hazrat Maulana, at one point your extract runs continuously as follows:

    "I tell you that no one in Lahore has obstructed nor can obstruct my  Khilafat. Do not think ill of any one. If you have believed, be grateful to God else seek steadfastness."

    Here are two brief questions.

    1. Does he say: "Do not think ill of any one" or is he specifying any particular persons?

    2. Is there any text in his speech between the sentences "Do not think ill of any one." and "If you have believed …"? You may initially just give a "yes" or "no" answer?

    I should add that over the next week I may not have time to keep this blog up to date promptly.

  5. April 13th, 2018 at 5:43 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Hussun Ahmed: Please grace us with answers to my two questions that I asked you in my last comment.

    In regard to my question (2), please do let us know if after the words "do not think ill of …", and before the words "If you have believed", Maulana Nur-ud-Din further explained what he meant by "thinking ill", and who was thinking ill against whom?

  6. June 22nd, 2018 at 10:20 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Hussun Ahmed: I can only conclude that you are not able to answer my two simple questions (see above). It also appears that the entire might of the Qadiani Jamaat, claiming to have tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of members, cannot provide you with the answers, which can be found by looking up the relevant issue of Badr in the archives of the Qadiani Jamaat.